I have two unit tests that fails because of "[RuntimeException: Missing CSRF Token]":
running(testServer(3333, provideFakeApplication()), () -> {
assertThat(WS.url("http://localhost:3333").get().get(3000).getStatus()
).isEqualTo(OK);
and
running(testServer(3333, provideFakeApplication()), HTMLUNIT, browser -> {
browser.goTo("http://localhost:3333");
assert....
How can I add a session with a CSRF token to the WS.url and the browser.goTo?
The tests are trying to reach a page that has a form.
A global solution would be to use a fake application that has the CSRF filter enabled. To do that you need to modify (i.e. create a class that inherits from WithApplication and override) your provideFakeApplication() such as it creates the fake application passing in the global settings:
public abstract class TestWrapper extends WithApplication {
public class GlobalTestSettings extends play.GlobalSettings {
#Override
public <T extends EssentialFilter> Class<T>[] filters() {
return new Class[] { CSRFFilter.class };
}
}
#Override
protected FakeApplication provideFakeApplication() {
stop(fakeApplication()); // Stop the existing fake app and start over
Map<String, String> addConfig = new HashMap<>();
return fakeApplication(addConfig, new GlobalTestSettings());
}
}
Related
I'm working on a Swing look&feel using kotlin. In order to create a UI, Swing requires to have a static method createUI with the following signature:
class ButtonUI: BasicButtonUI() {
...
companion object {
#JvmStatic fun createUI(p0: JComponent): ComponentUI {
...
}
}
}
and then it is called via reflection in Swing code:
m = uiClass.getMethod("createUI", new Class[]{JComponent.class});
Unfortunately, the code above cannot be compiled by the kotlin compiler because of:
Error:(88, 9) Kotlin: Accidental override: The following declarations have the same JVM signature (createUI(Ljavax/swing/JComponent;)Ljavax/swing/plaf/ComponentUI;):
fun createUI(c: JComponent): ComponentUI
fun createUI(p0: JComponent!): ComponentUI!
Is there a workaround for this case?
it's a kotlin bug KT-12993. Unfortunately, the bug is not fixed yet. just using java implements your ButtonUI or switch between java and kotlin to solving the problem if you want to let kotlin implements your ui logic. for example, you should define a peer between java and kotlin.
the java code as below:
public class ButtonUI extends BasicButtonUI {
private ButtonUIPeer peer;
public ButtonUI(ButtonUIPeer peer) {
this.peer = peer;
}
#Override
public void installUI(JComponent c) {
peer.installUI(c, () -> super.installUI(c));
}
// override other methods ...
public static ComponentUI createUI(JComponent c) {
// create the peer which write by kotlin
// |
return new ButtonUI(new YourButtonUIPeer());
}
}
interface ButtonUIPeer {
void installUI(Component c, Runnable parentCall);
//adding other methods for the ButtonUI
}
the kotlin code as below:
class YourButtonUIPeer : ButtonUIPeer {
override fun installUI(c: Component, parentCall: Runnable) {
// todo: implements your own ui logic
}
}
IF you have more than half dozen methods to implements, you can using the Proxy Design Pattern just delegate request to the target ButtonUI which implemented in kotlin (many IDE support generates delegate methods for a field). for example:
public class ButtonUIProxy extends BasicButtonUI {
private final BasicButtonUI target;
//1. move the cursor to here ---^
//2. press `ALT+INSERT`
//3. choose `Delegate Methods`
//4. select all public methods and then click `OK`
public ButtonUIProxy(BasicButtonUI target) {
this.target = target;
}
public static ComponentUI createUI(JComponent c){
// class created by kotlin ---v
return new ButtonUIProxy(new ButtonUI());
}
}
In latest version of Kotlin 1.3.70 the error can be suppressed with #Suppress("ACCIDENTAL_OVERRIDE"). I am not sure since which version it works.
I’m using Mockito 1.9.5. How do I mock what is coming back from a protected method? I have this protected method …
protected JSONObject myMethod(final String param1, final String param2)
{
…
}
However, when I attempt to do this in JUnit:
final MyService mymock = Mockito.mock(MyService.class, Mockito.CALLS_REAL_METHODS);
final String pararm1 = “param1”;
Mockito.doReturn(myData).when(mymock).myMethod(param1, param2);
On the last line, I get a compilation error “The method ‘myMethod’ is not visible.” How do I use Mockito to mock protected methods? I’m open to upgrading my version if that’s the answer.
This is not an issue with Mockito, but with plain old java. From where you are calling the method, you don't have visibility. That is why it is a compile-time issue instead of a run-time issue.
A couple options:
declare your test in the same package as the mocked class
change the visibilty of the method if you can
create a local (inner) class that extends the mocked class, then mock this local class. Since the class would be local, you would have visibility to the method.
Responding to the request for a code sample of option 3 from John B's answer:
public class MyClass {
protected String protectedMethod() {
return "Can't touch this";
}
public String publicMethod() {
return protectedMethod();
}
}
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyClassTest {
class MyClassMock extends MyClass {
#Override
public String protectedMethod() {
return "You can see me now!";
}
}
#Mock
MyClassMock myClass = mock(MyClassMock.class);
#Test
public void myClassPublicMethodTest() {
when(myClass.publicMethod()).thenCallRealMethod();
when(myClass.protectedMethod()).thenReturn("jk!");
}
}
You can use Spring's ReflectionTestUtils to use your class as it is and without needing of change it just for tests or wrap it in another class.
public class MyService {
protected JSONObject myProtectedMethod(final String param1, final String param2) {
return new JSONObject();
}
public JSONObject myPublicMethod(final String param1) {
return new JSONObject();
}
}
And then in Test
#RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
public class MyServiceTest {
#Mock
private MyService myService;
#Before
public void setUp() {
MockitoAnnotations.initMocks(this);
when(myService.myPublicMethod(anyString())).thenReturn(mock(JSONObject.class));
when(ReflectionTestUtils.invokeMethod(myService, "myProtectedMethod", anyString(), anyString())).thenReturn(mock(JSONObject.class));
}
}
Something like following worked for me, using doReturn() and Junit5's ReflectionSupport.
[Note: I tested on Mockito 3.12.4]
ReflectionSupport.invokeMethod(
mymock.getClass()
// .getSuperclass() // Uncomment this, if the protected method defined in the parent class.
.getDeclaredMethod("myMethod", String.class, String.class),
doReturn(myData).when(mymock),
param1,
param2);
John B is right, this is because the method you're trying to test is protected, it's not a problem with Mockito.
Another option on top of the ones he has listed would be to use reflection to gain access to the method. This will allow you to avoid changing the method you are testing, and avoid changing the pattern you use to write tests, and where you store these tests. I've had to do this myself for some tests where I was not allowed to change the existing code base which included a large number of private methods that needed to be unit tested.
These links explain Reflection and how to use it very well, so I will link to them rather than copy:
What is reflection and whit is it useful
How to test a class that has private methods, fields, or inner classes
WhiteBox.invokeMethod() can be handy.
public class Test extend TargetClass{
#Override
protected Object method(...) {
return [ValueYouWant];
}
}
In Spring, you can set it high high-priority like this:
#TestConfiguration
public class Config {
#Profile({"..."})
#Bean("...")
#Primary // <------ high-priority
public TargetClass TargetClass(){
return new TargetClass() {
#Override
protected WPayResponse validate(...) {
return null;
}
};
}
}
It is the same to override the origin bean.
So basically I'm trying to write a Junit using powermockito for a adapter for a service class which consumes a webservice.
I have an adapter with a constructor that inturn creates a new service object in it's own constructor by calling a super class. I have to test my adapter. I have used power mockito to mock my adapter as well as my service class but I don't think the mocked object is able to perform the super call. The following is the structure of my code. I want the super class to return my mocked object upon call.
public class CommonPoolingServiceAdp {
private CPSSecurity cpsServicePort;
public CommonPoolingServiceAdp() {
CommonPoolingService service= new CommonPoolingService();
cpsServicePort=service.getCommonPoolingServicePort();
}
public SercurityDataResponse getBroadcastElements(broadcastReqObj)
{
SercurityDataResponse=null;
response=cpsServicePort.getBroadcastElements(broadcaseRequestObj);
}
}
public class CommonPoolingService extends Service {
{
static
{
//few mandatory initializations
}
public CommonPoolingService()
{
super(WSDL_Location,QName);
}
public CSPSecurity getCommonPoolingServicePort() {
return super.getPort(QName);
}
}
}
Please share a bit more of your code. By the way, this is how you mock a super class method :
public class SuperClass {
public void method() {
methodA(); // I don't want to run this!
}
}
public class MyClass extends SuperClass{
public void method(){
super.method()
methodB(); // I only want to test this!
}
}
#Test
public void testMethod() {
MyClass spy = Mockito.spy(new MyClass());
// Prevent/stub logic in super.method()
Mockito.doNothing().when((SuperClass)spy).methodA();
// When
spy.method();
// Then
verify(spy).methodB();
}
Hope, it will help.
I am trying to use MvvmCross v3 in one of my applications which consists of activities, content providers and broadcast receivers. However, I am not quite succeeding.
The application consists of a Core PCL which contains logic, models and viewmodels and a Droid application which contains all MonoDroid-specific stuff.
In Core I have an App:MvxApplication class and in Droid I have a Setup:MvxSetup class which creates an App-instance and initialises stuff.
I can use the IOC parts with content providers, broadcast receivers and non-Mvx-activities without problems. When I now want to add an MvxActivity it falls apart.
When the Mvx Activity launches I get an exception "Cirrious.CrossCore.Exceptions.MvxException: MvxTrace already initialized".
Obviously I am initialising things in the wrong order / wrong place. But, I need a pointer in the right direction.
My App Class
public class App
: MvxApplication
{
public override void Initialize()
{
base.Initialize();
InitialisePlugins();
InitaliseServices();
InitialiseStartNavigation();
}
private void InitaliseServices()
{
CreatableTypes().EndingWith("Service").AsInterfaces().RegisterAsLazySingleton();
}
private void InitialiseStartNavigation()
{
}
private void InitialisePlugins()
{
// initialise any plugins where are required at app startup
// e.g. Cirrious.MvvmCross.Plugins.Visibility.PluginLoader.Instance.EnsureLoaded();
}
}
And my setup class
public class Setup
: MvxAndroidSetup
{
public Setup(Context applicationContext)
: base(applicationContext)
{
}
protected override IMvxApplication CreateApp()
{
return new App();
}
protected override IMvxNavigationSerializer CreateNavigationSerializer()
{
return new MvxJsonNavigationSerializer();
}
public override void LoadPlugins(Cirrious.CrossCore.Plugins.IMvxPluginManager pluginManager)
{
pluginManager.EnsurePluginLoaded<Cirrious.MvvmCross.Plugins.Json.PluginLoader>();
base.LoadPlugins(pluginManager);
}
public void RegisterServices()
{
// I register a bunch of singletons here
}
// The following is called from my content provider's OnCreate()
// Which is the first code that is run
public static void DoSetup(Context applicationContext)
{
var setup = new Setup(applicationContext);
setup.Initialize();
setup.RegisterServices();
}
My Content provider's OnCreate():
public override bool OnCreate()
{
Log.Debug(Tag, "OnCreate");
_context = Context;
Setup.DoSetup(_context);
return true;
}
My MvxActivity:
[Activity(Label = "#string/ApplicationName", MainLauncher = true)]
[IntentFilter(new[] { "Settings" })]
public class SettingsView
: MvxActivity
{
public new SettingsViewModel ViewModel
{
get { return (SettingsViewModel) base.ViewModel; }
set { base.ViewModel = value; }
}
protected override void OnViewModelSet()
{
SetContentView(Resource.Layout.Page_SettingsView);
}
}
Short answer (I'm in an airport on mobile)
all the mvx android views will check the setup singleton has been created - https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.Droid/Platform/MvxAndroidSetupSingleton.cs (vnext tree - but similar on v3)
so if you are creating a setup, but not setting this singleton, then you will get a second setup created when you first show a view
i suspect you can just get your setup created via the singleton class, but if this isn't flexible enough for your needs, then please log an issue on github
would also love to see some blogging about this - I've not used custom content providers much (at all!)
I have an MVVM Cross application running on Windows Phone 8 which I recently ported across to using Portable Class Libraries.
The view models are within the portable class library and one of them exposes a property which enables and disables a PerformanceProgressBar from the Silverlight for WP toolkit through data binding.
When the user presses a button a RelayCommand kicks off a background process which sets the property to true which should enable the progress bar and does the background processing.
Before I ported it to a PCL I was able to invoke the change from the UI thread to ensure the progress bar got enabled, but the Dispatcher object isn't available in a PCL. How can I work around this?
Thanks
Dan
All the MvvmCross platforms require that UI-actions get marshalled back on to the UI Thread/Apartment - but each platform does this differently....
To work around this, MvvmCross provides a cross-platform way to do this - using an IMvxViewDispatcherProvider injected object.
For example, on WindowsPhone IMvxViewDispatcherProvider is provided ultimately by MvxMainThreadDispatcher in https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross.WindowsPhone/Views/MvxMainThreadDispatcher.cs
This implements the InvokeOnMainThread using:
private bool InvokeOrBeginInvoke(Action action)
{
if (_uiDispatcher.CheckAccess())
action();
else
_uiDispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
return true;
}
For code in ViewModels:
your ViewModel inherits from MvxViewModel
the MvxViewModel inherits from an MvxApplicationObject
the MvxApplicationObject inherits from an MvxNotifyPropertyChanged
the MvxNotifyPropertyChanged object inherits from an MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject
MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject is https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross/ViewModels/MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject.cs
public abstract class MvxMainThreadDispatchingObject
: IMvxServiceConsumer<IMvxViewDispatcherProvider>
{
protected IMvxViewDispatcher ViewDispatcher
{
get { return this.GetService().Dispatcher; }
}
protected void InvokeOnMainThread(Action action)
{
if (ViewDispatcher != null)
ViewDispatcher.RequestMainThreadAction(action);
}
}
So... your ViewModel can just call InvokeOnMainThread(() => DoStuff());
One further point to note is that MvvmCross automatically does UI thread conversions for property updates which are signalled in a MvxViewModel (or indeed in any MvxNotifyPropertyChanged object) through the RaisePropertyChanged() methods - see:
protected void RaisePropertyChanged(string whichProperty)
{
// check for subscription before going multithreaded
if (PropertyChanged == null)
return;
InvokeOnMainThread(
() =>
{
var handler = PropertyChanged;
if (handler != null)
handler(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(whichProperty));
});
}
in https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross/blob/vnext/Cirrious/Cirrious.MvvmCross/ViewModels/MvxNotifyPropertyChanged.cs
This automatic marshalling of RaisePropertyChanged() calls works well for most situations, but can be a bit inefficient if you Raise a lot of changed properties from a background thread - it can lead to a lot of thread context switching. It's not something you need to be aware of in most of your code - but if you ever do find it is a problem, then it can help to change code like:
MyProperty1 = newValue1;
MyProperty2 = newValue2;
// ...
MyProperty10 = newValue10;
to:
InvokeOnMainThread(() => {
MyProperty1 = newValue1;
MyProperty2 = newValue2;
// ...
MyProperty10 = newValue10;
});
If you ever use ObservableCollection, then please note that MvvmCross does not do any thread marshalling for the INotifyPropertyChanged or INotifyCollectionChanged events fired by these classes - so it's up to you as a developer to marshall these changes.
The reason: ObservableCollection exists in the MS and Mono code bases - so there is no easy way that MvvmCross can change these existing implementations.
If you don't have access to the Dispatcher, you can just pass a delegate of the BeginInvoke method to your class:
public class YourViewModel
{
public YourViewModel(Action<Action> beginInvoke)
{
this.BeginInvoke = beginInvoke;
}
protected Action<Action> BeginInvoke { get; private set; }
private void SomeMethod()
{
this.BeginInvoke(() => DoSomething());
}
}
Then to instanciate it (from a class that has access to the dispatcher):
var dispatcherDelegate = action => Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
var viewModel = new YourViewModel(dispatcherDelegate);
Or you can also create a wrapper around your dispatcher.
First, define a IDispatcher interface in your portable class library:
public interface IDispatcher
{
void BeginInvoke(Action action);
}
Then, in the project who has access to the dispatcher, implement the interface:
public class DispatcherWrapper : IDispatcher
{
public DispatcherWrapper(Dispatcher dispatcher)
{
this.Dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
protected Dispatcher Dispatcher { get; private set; }
public void BeginInvoke(Action action)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(action);
}
}
Then you can just pass this object as a IDispatcher instance to your portable class library.
Another option that could be easier is to store a reference to SynchronizationContext.Current in your class's constructor. Then, later on, you can use _context.Post(() => ...) to invoke on the context -- which is the UI thread in WPF/WinRT/SL.
class MyViewModel
{
private readonly SynchronizationContext _context;
public MyViewModel()
{
_context = SynchronizationContext.Current.
}
private void MyCallbackOnAnotherThread()
{
_context.Post(() => UpdateTheUi());
}
}